Delhi High Court Considers SOP for Online Personality Rights Violations
The Delhi High Court is contemplating the establishment of a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to address the misuse of personality rights in online content. This discussion arose during a hearing related to actress Tabu's petition, which seeks the removal of unauthorized and defamatory material circulating on digital platforms. Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized the urgency of creating an effective system to prevent the rapid spread of such content. The court has reserved its decision on interim relief and scheduled the next hearing for December 7. The case involves various social media intermediaries and highlights the complexities of managing online content and personality rights.
| Aug 6, 2026, 14:09 IST
Court's Consideration of SOP for Personality Rights
The Delhi High Court indicated on Thursday that it might develop a 'Standard Operating Procedure' (SOP) to address issues related to the misuse of 'personality rights' online. This statement came during the hearing of actress Tabu's petition, which sought the removal of allegedly obscene, defamatory, and unauthorized content proliferating on digital platforms. While presiding over the case, Justice Jyoti Singh emphasized the need for an effective system to curb the rapid spread of offensive online content, asserting that the issue extends far beyond the current dispute. The court noted that the challenge lies not in policy but in establishing a system that can prevent such content from being published online in the first place, highlighting it as a significant concern. Furthermore, the court suggested that it is contemplating the creation of an SOP to handle such cases.
Court's Decision on Interim Relief
The court has reserved its order regarding the actor's plea for interim relief and scheduled the next hearing for December 7. Initially, senior advocate Swati Sukumar, representing Tabu, informed the court that the parties had amended their memorandum to accurately identify the social media intermediaries involved as defendants.
Review of Allegedly Infringing URLs
Justice Singh reviewed the list of allegedly infringing URLs based on the platforms and sought responses from the relevant intermediaries. Advocate Varun Pathak, representing Meta, stated that all identified links hosted by the company could be removed. He informed the court that the list included 34 Facebook URLs, 71 Instagram URLs, and one Threads link. A lawyer for Google mentioned that some URLs identified by the plaintiff would also be taken down.
Representing GoDaddy, a lawyer argued that the domain names involved in the dispute were also pertinent, asserting that suspending the domain would automatically deactivate all associated URLs. The main opposition came from Reddit, whose lawyer contended that many of the challenged clips were neither AI-generated nor manipulated but were taken from Tabu's own films. He argued that the original film clips should not be deemed infringing simply because they were uploaded to the platform.